Any Super 8 features going on at the moment?

[ECNtoo]

If one is looking to use 100D for a feature then why not use DS8? The cost savings from the stock and processing alone will make up for the price of the camera. And no jitter ever!

[Mitch Perkins]

Just a note to anyone thinking of making an S8 feature - during the making of "Sleep Always", we spent zero time correcting for jumpy super 8, zero time correcting for "etc.", and zero time trying to make it look like film, since it was film, and thus looked fantastic right outta the box.

Agreed. Sleep Always did look terrific. But that doesn't negate the fact that much super 8 has jitter problems that have to be dealt with, whatever the cause. That possibility can certainly be a factor when the question is asked, "Are there any super 8 features going on at the moment?" and all the OP gets is tumbleweeds and crickets as a response.

Sometimes posts here get no response for awhile at first. The people with relevant responses aren't always around...no need to assume jitter has killed the format. No need either to waste time correcting a bit of jump and weave, since the inherently lush look of real film more than compensates.....

We did have to spend some time dealing with files the computer corrupted all by it's own self, though......

Yeah that's sometimes a problem but, unlike unwanted and surprising jitter, there are easy and cost effective solutions for corruption such as making back ups.

Luckily, my easy and cost effective solution was to blow dust off the capture card, or some bit of stuff, can't remember. A DV tape fresh from the camera with dropout though, and you're *done*.

I love the look of film but I no longer believe that you have to shoot film to get the look that audiences will accept as film.

The most technically un-savvy folks on the planet disagree...

Some do, for sure. But my un-scientific sampling says that most don't care, even if they do detect a difference.

Every client who can afford it gets the Super 8 package, and it's not cheap. They care.

[snip]

Finally, the OP asked if there were any S8 features in the works, not what anyone thought of the format for said application. Since this is the "small gauge film forum", one wonders what value there is in dismissing S8 across the board as a viable feature film format, without addressing the main point - does it suit the film's conceit?

I agree that the super 8 look is viable for certain things and even for features.
But I simply disagree that shooting super 8 is the only way to get the super 8 look.

Don't kid yourself - if these folks felt slapping a "film effect" on some of the DV footage would be good enough, they wouldn't pay me to shoot and transfer a bunch of Super 8. I can guarantee that.

Also, if the OP asks if there are any super 8 features going on and the answer is "no" or "not many", then discussing the reasons why (such as jittery carts, etc) is certainly on-topic, in my opinion.

Roger

Again with the "etc.".....what is this "etc."?

While jittery carts are clearly a pet topic of yours, there is no evidence to show they are currently responsible for a perceived dearth of S8 features. (I say perceived, because we will soon be transferring a S8 feature to HD for one of the board members here. With Thierry's and Richard PT's entries, that makes three.)

I haven't experienced any registration issues in a long time. Hennyway, if audiences "don't care" that an entire movie exhibits the flat banality of the digital look, they certainly aren't going to shit their pants over a bit of jump and weave in a beautiful lush film project!

Now that Vision3 is out, it's a great time to shoot a feature on Super 8! Don't fight it!

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

No need either to waste time correcting a bit of jump and weave, since the inherently lush look of real film more than compensates.....

That's your opinion. But compensation isn't required when you can produce a nice super 8 look on digital without the jump and weave. So what this gets down to is the skill of the person creating the faux Super 8 look versus the risk of having jump and weave. Not everyone can create the look successfully just as not every cart is jitter free. ;)

The difference is that one can be solved by skill. The other is simply luck of the draw.

A DV tape fresh from the camera with dropout though, and you're *done*.

Agreed. The question is, what is more likely today? A DV tape with project-ruining drop out or a super cart with project-ruining jam or jitter? I respect the results you guys got on Sleep Always. Really beautiful stuff. But, again, your success doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist and that the potential of jitter doesn't put a lot of people off from continuing with super 8 as a serious feature format.

Every client who can afford it gets the Super 8 package, and it's not cheap. They care.

I won't argue that your clients don't care. They obviously do. But that really isn't the context of the discussion. Your clients come to you for a specific look. Audiences about to watch a feature don't know before hand what they are coming to see. I would agree that if the story and acting and directing are good enough, then they won't mind if it is super 8 or digital with film look.

Don't kid yourself - if these folks felt slapping a "film effect" on some of the DV footage would be good enough, they wouldn't pay me to shoot and transfer a bunch of Super 8. I can guarantee that.

Hmmm.....Not really. You are in the business of promoting a super 8 package, not a film look on digital. I have seen what you do with negative and it is usually superior to what many post house produce. I am quite sure that with your post skills, your artist's eye, your familiarity with the different super 8 stocks and some serious experimenting, you could come up with a totally believable film-look for digital that would satisfy your clients, as far as the visual appeal goes. But -and I may be mistaken here- I am assuming that many of your clients are also intrigued by the whole concept of having people actually shooting on super 8 for their event. I would suggest that you could shoot with video cameras that look like super 8, then do your best super 8 impression on digital, and then they would not complain or know the difference if they were expecting super 8. This is a compliment, by the way.

While jittery carts are clearly a pet topic of yours,...

Nah. In fact, I get rather tired of reminding those that seem to feel cart jitter is something of the past. Fluctuating frame lines, jumpy images from freshly refurbished cameras. We see it all the time. It hasn't gone away. Again, this discussion isn't about what you or I think about cart jitter. It is about what people shooting a feature might feel about the potential for cart jitter, whether they have experienced it or not.

... there is no evidence to show they are currently responsible for a perceived dearth of S8 features.

Likewise, there is no evidence that jitter is being ignored in widespread favor of shooting super 8 features, either. ;)

I haven't experienced any registration issues in a long time.

But you did experience registration problems of some kind at some point. Compared to the thousands of hours of digital and the miles of 16mm that I have shot with zero problem, I would say that is the kind of comparative data that people thinking about shooting a feature in super 8 might find important. I don't think it is heresy to discuss it.

Hennyway, if audiences "don't care" that an entire movie exhibits the flat banality of the digital look, they certainly aren't going to shit their pants over a bit of jump and weave in a beautiful lush film project!

Conversely, if they don't mind the jump and weave of super 8, then they will love digital that looks like super 8 that doesn't jump and weave. ;)

Roger

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

...Fluctuating frame lines, jumpy images from freshly refurbished cameras. We see it all the time. It hasn't gone away....

I had a guy here a few weeks ago. He had a newly serviced Beaulieu 4008, serviced by Bjorn Andersson. He also had a "Frame Master" stability plate. One of his carts was very jumpy, with bad registration.

I can´t remember, but is was a different emulsion than the rest of his carts. I think it was a double-X or tri-X. Perhaps it was just the cart? Perhaps it was the cart in combination with the Frame Master? Perhaps it was the specific emulsion in combination with the Frame Master?

I don´t know. But the point is that the registration problem hasn´t "gone away". Perhaps it isn´t as bad as it was a few years ago, but it is still around, scaring people.

[Rick Palidwor]

Since this has digressed into a film vs. digital discussion I am surprised no one has mentioned contrast ratio. Film's latitude, even reversal, is so much greater than video's that it's not a contest. Unless the project calls for a flat low-contrast look or unless it calls for hours and hours of shooting, like on a documentary project, film is always the way to go (for me anyway). Whether 16 or S8 depends on other factors, such as budget and desired look.

Having made a feature on super (duper) 8 I wouldn't hesitate to do it again, if it suited the story of course.

It is also worth noting that Guy Maddin continues to shoot features on super 8. Go see his most recent, My Winnipeg. It's brilliant. And I've seen a 35mm blow-up on a big screen and not once did I feel that the image quality was an issue. In fact it was consistently fantastic largely because it was perfectly suited to his subject and treatment. And that really is the bottom line. Abstract discussions of which format to shoot without considering subject and treatment are rather pointless IMO.

Rick

[ECNtoo]

Once again, why not use DS8 100D? It will be steady and low cost.

[RichardB]

Because its hard finding a working, decent camera from a reputable seller at a good price. Obviously these criteria exist, but nowhere near as commonly as Super 8 cameras. If you can point me in the direction of a Canon DS8 that works as good as my 814XL-S I might consider shooting DS8 instead this summer.

[Mitch Perkins]

I am quite sure that with your post skills, your artist's eye, your familiarity with the different super 8 stocks and some serious experimenting, you could come up with a totally believable film-look for digital that would satisfy your clients, as far as the visual appeal goes.

Thank you sir! However, like you, I'd rather spend my limited computer time on something creative than on something remedial....heh

But -and I may be mistaken here- I am assuming that many of your clients are also intrigued by the whole concept of having people actually shooting on super 8 for their event.

You may very well be correct. Word precedes the shooter and there is interest on the day....but really the interest always centers around the final look: "you really can't get it any other way..." they seem to understand that.

While jittery carts are clearly a pet topic of yours,...

Nah. In fact, I get rather tired of reminding those that seem to feel cart jitter is something of the past. Fluctuating frame lines, jumpy images from freshly refurbished cameras. We see it all the time. It hasn't gone away. Again, this discussion isn't about what you or I think about cart jitter. It is about what people shooting a feature might feel about the potential for cart jitter, whether they have experienced it or not.

I'll cop to having perhaps been very lucky.....

I haven't experienced any registration issues in a long time.

But you did experience registration problems of some kind at some point. Compared to the thousands of hours of digital and the miles of 16mm that I have shot with zero problem, I would say that is the kind of comparative data that people thinking about shooting a feature in super 8 might find important.

Not if you're comparing all your positive experiences to my limited negative ones....

Hennyway, if audiences "don't care" that an entire movie exhibits the flat banality of the digital look, they certainly aren't going to shit their pants over a bit of jump and weave in a beautiful lush film project!

Conversely, if they don't mind the jump and weave of super 8, then they will love digital that looks like super 8 that doesn't jump and weave. ;)

Roger

Bring it on, friend! But, put in a little bit of jump and weave, because static shots on digital tend to die on the screen....and also the random grain pattern, etc.

Have a great weekend Roger.

Mitch

[ECNtoo]

I beleive JK Optical who may now be called Matrix takes a Bolex and converts it to DS* for a reasonable price. They also lube and test unit to make sure it is working properly. They have done the conversion for decades. I have a nonworking Canon DS8 that I should be getting serviced but I prefer sticking to my Bolex and recently aquired Pathe DS8. both of those can use a Tobin motor making them even more usefull.

[Jim Carlile]

So what this gets down to is the skill of the person creating the faux Super 8 look versus the risk of having jump and weave.
Roger

yes, but it's so ..... faux !

Interesting historical note about the jitter registration problem. I was doing some research today and just learned that when Kodak was doing their initial studies on the feasibility of super 8, such as perforation size and the like, they discovered two things in the early 60s.

One was that they could reduce the width of the regular 16mm perf but not the height (for the claw), and the other was that sound striping on both sides of the film-- balance and main-- increased gate stability and radically reduced edge weave. The film lay stiffer in the gate.

This is one reason why (weep) Kodak was originally going to make all super 8 film with mag striping. It was the main idea-- a new A/V system. All super 8 stock was going to be sound worthy.

It also explains in my experience why sound film and sound cartridges were really superior in this area-- as well as much quieter. They ran better.

But, I still love silent film...

[Scotness]

So getting back to the original post a bit does anyone know what kind of camera and stock Guy maddin shoots on - where he developes it and what his post flow is?

Scot

[Mitch Perkins]

So getting back to the original post a bit does anyone know what kind of camera and stock Guy maddin shoots on - where he developes it and what his post flow is?

Scot

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pNo ... =firefox-a

"CAMERA PACKAGE Clairmont Camera
FILM STOCK Kodak Canada Inc.
FILM PROCESSING Medallion PFA
Exclusive Film & Video
PROCESSING CONSULTANTS Jeff Bottomley, Jody Shapiro"

There's lots of super interesting stuff on Maddin online. Why, sometimes he uses a cellphone, if that's what's at hand....

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo ... _9577.html

FCP seems to be the NLE of his choice....no surprise there.

Mitch

[Scotness]

Thanks for that Mitch

Scot

[woods01]

So getting back to the original post a bit does anyone know what kind of camera and stock Guy maddin shoots on - where he developes it and what his post flow is?

More info, download the pdf booklet available here:

http://www.winnipegfilmgroup.com/guy_ma ... ental.aspx

In general for 16mm he uses 7222, and his post flow has changed over the years as B&W labs have closed and digital became more accessible. On Heart of the World he had Super 8 edited by hand and then blown up with an optical printer and cut into the 16mm footage. Newer stuff like Brand Upon the Brain had DI at Flying Spot.

[Daniel]

Hello,

a post from Pro8mm, a few days ago mentionned that a feature film called "My sister's keeper" (New Line Cinema) have used super-8 stocks (Pro8/05 and Pro8/01) at the beginning of the trailer.

Here is the youtube link of the trailer :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I86t4AixTu0

The super-8 were transferred to "HD" through Cintel Millennium2 flying spot machine. I don't have other details. It seems that the long feature will be on theatres soon in the USA.

bye bye
Daniel